[NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program

Tue Apr 26 20:11:22 CEST 2016

To be candid I am for the pilot program irrespective of the dangers or
opportunities the program offers.
It is an experiment, every great thing that happened in life come through
some form of pilot - intended or accidental, especially as it offers to
help reduce the burden of overworked volunteers and help to engage inactive
members in some to be identified ways.
More over, if I get the conversation correct this was an offer to all the
ICANN communities.

There have also been some interesting points that have been raised in this
conversation that I would like us to take note of , such as
-  the role experience and inexperience play in the over all NCUC
participation effectiveness in the ICANN ecosystem.
- The different incentives that motivate the various faction in NCUC.
- what will the outcome be if the consensus is at odd with the EC?
- finally on a lighter note , what makes some individuals see trojan and
others horses?

These are just my thoughts - staying up struggling with insomnia far away
from my country :(
Thank you,
Benjamin

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

> Seems to me that your point about managing this staff person becomes
> crucial: "If we use ICANN staff and they are truly under our control, then
> we have to tell them what we want, when we want it, and how to do it..."
>
>  * First off, we need real and clear authority in the hiring of such person
> (that is, we can veto outright any candidate we feel is not aligned with
> our needs, for any reason without having to get the veto "approved" in any
> way by ICANN).  We have to have real "hiring and firing authority" or else
> it's not to our advantage.  That person needs to know that we can boot them
> for cause if they obstruct our mission, and in such case they would not get
> administrative cover from ICANN.  This is a prerequisite, I think, for
> moving forward (I think this is what you must mean by "truly under our
> control").  In an operational sense, this becomes "NCUC staff" even if
> funding comes from ICANN corp.
>
>  * Second, once this is established, the funding for the position needs to
> be reliable and sustained (otherwise we can't get the best person).
>
>
> Providing we get the right person in the role, perhaps that person will be
> tasked with being pro-active about "extracting" direction decisions from
> the constituency and its committees -- especially with oversight from the
> active leaders of the group in EC and elsewhere.  Also, whatever
> administrative processes and materials emerge from this role need to be
> explicitly provided to Chair and EC at least, in order that any change in
> this staffing can be handed off smoothly without reinventing the wheel each
> time.
>
> In short, part of the job description should be to off-load as much as
> possible of the administrative transaction cost onto the paid position
> itself.  This can come from monitoring collective discussions and perhaps
> at certain points suggesting codifications pro-actively in order to meet
> deadlines, etc.  Constant ongoing simultaneous distillation of discussion
> with periodic reality check feedback might be an efficient way to smooth
> the process.
>
> We tend to do this informally and ad hoc anyway, but if this process can be
> "regularized" a bit such formalized active listening might allow the group
> to get through things on a more timely basis if this role takes on a
> leadership stance in administrative respects.
>
> Dan
>
> PS: Not to toot my own horn as a priority, but I happen to be in a career
> transition at present, and could be available for paid work.  I haven't had
> much space for volunteering here since 2007, and frankly don't keep up with
> all the policy details flowing through this list.  This now counts as
> "looking for work" under the provisions of California's unemployment
> insurance benefit system.  ;-)  Just, I hope this could be done via
> telecommuting -- not interested in relocating back down to L.A. from the
> Bay Area.
>
>
>
> At 2:40 PM +0000 4/26/16, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >Excellent questions Dan
> >Hired staff has its own set of issues not least fundraising, but this is
> >the kind of option we need to be exploring
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On
> Behalf
> >> Of Dan Krimm
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:19 AM
> >> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program
> >>
> >> Hmm, now I'm thinking about how to possibly game the system.
> >>
> >> Could we designate a current NCUC member (or several to choose from)
> >> who otherwise fits the job description to officially recuse from
> >>explicit NCUC
> >> membership?  But then, of course, they'd have to consult with NCUC on
> any
> >> related work, so perhaps we could still keep them on the email list to
> stay
> >> abreast of discussions, etc.
> >>
> >> Could we end up getting someone sympathetic with our mission actually
> paid
> >> to do the work?
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 12:24 AM -0400 4/26/16, Edward Morris wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Kathy,
> >> >
> >> >Last night four very tired, overworked volunteers were on a call to
> >> >develop a public comment on ICANN's FY17 Operating Plan and Budget.
> >> >Five hundred NCSG members were not on this call. In my view the
> >> >solution to our staffing problem is not to turn policy research and
> >> >development over to ICANN but rather to try to make this group work as
> >> >it should by involving more of our members in policy work.
> >> >
> >> >Let's take a look at this program. ICANN proposes helping the NCUC
> >> >"with support for the research, development, collaboration, drafting
> >> >and editing of documents for submission within the policy development
> >> >processes of ICANN". By support they mean having a staffer research,
> >> >write and direct policy calls.
> >> >
> >> >Who is this staffer? Leading experts in the fields we deal with? No.
> >> >ICANN proposes giving us support by staffers that fit this description:
> >> >"a Master or Ph.D student, or recent graduates in one of the following
> >> >areas would be most preferred: computer security, computer science,
> >> >information science, engineering and public policy".
> >> >
> >> >Let me get this straight: members of the NCUC who are students,
> >> >professors or academics in these fields are still expected to donate
> >> >their time for free doing policy at ICANN while we have young people in
> >> >or just out of school getting paid to do roughly the same work?
> >> >
> >> >It gets better. As David Olive writes: "We would also welcome your
> >> >input on any specific individuals you might recommend to serve in a
> >> >test support role for the community. ICANN procurement principles would
> >> >prevent someone from the same community helping out within that
> >> >community, but if you are aware of any skilled writers and researchers
> >> >who are interested in a temporary assignment, please let me know.".
> >> >
> >> >So anyone in the NCUC, any of our many Masters or PhD students
> >> >currently donating your time: Let David know you want to get paid for
> >> >your work in ICANN. Sure, you'll have to work for another constituency
> >> >or stakeholder group but at least you'll get paid. Who cares about your
> >> >values or personal beliefs?
> >> >
> >> >I consider my work here to be public service. It does not and will
> >> >never appear on my resume. Others are here as representatives of their
> >> >civil society organization. They do get paid for their work here,
> >> >albeit indirectly. Still, there very much is a volunteer ethos in the
> >> >NCUC. Going down the road proposed by ICANN corporate will
> >> undoubtedly
> >> >kill that spirit. I've seen it happen in political campaigns where paid
> >> >and volunteer staff often run into problems working with each other in
> >> >harmony and void of jealousy. The volunteers resent those being paid.
> >> >
> >> >As Milton has written, we haven't worked so hard to restructure this
> >> >corporation into one where the ultimate power is community based to now
> >> >allow staff to better manage the community.
> >> >
> >> >I guess I can put this in more personal terms:  If we are going to
> >> >start paying people to do what I now do for free, don't expect me to do
> >> >it for free anymore. Yes, ICANN's support in this area could help us
> >> >but ONLY by agreeing to contract with our own people to provide these
> >> >services. As it stands now the only people not eligible to work in
> >> >these new roles for the NCUC are NCUC members. Yet our members are
> >> free
> >> >to work for other constituencies and stakeholder groups. Does this
> >> >somehow make sense to anyone?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, last night four tired, overworked NCUC volunteers worked on a NCSG
> >> >public comment on the FY17 Budget. I've seen a draft of ALAC's public
> >> >comments, written with staff assistance. I've seen the RSSAC comments.
> >> >Our public comment will be superior to those, as our comments often
> are.
> >> >That's because of the talent and commitment of the volunteer members of
> >> >the NCUC.
> >> >
> >> >We do not need ICANN corporate to pay non NCUC member students they
> >> >select to do our policy development for us. We certainly could use help
> >> >and resources in this area but not this type of help. But if we decide
> >> >to go in this direction...
> >> >
> >> >I wonder if I really could get hired and help the IPC write policy
> >> >documents porting the new gTLD RPM's over to legacy gTLD's. Personally,
> >> >I think that's a terrible idea and as a NCUC volunteer I've been
> >> >prepared to fight it but I do need to pay bills so...so much for my
> >> >public service ethos.
> >> >
> >> >This program is a poorly designed bad idea.
> >> >
> >> >Kind Regards,
> >> >
> >> >Ed
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:38 AM
> >> >To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >> >Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Pilot Program
> >> >
> >> >I've been out of town, but if this offer is being made to all
> >> >constituencies, and we turn it down, won't we potentially be at an even
> >> >greater disadvantage than we already are? We are already volunteer
> >> >people in NCUC working across the table from people largely paid to be
> >> >here from other constituencies. If they now get paid staff to write
> >> >their comments (presumably which they have designed and drafted),
> >> >doesn't our disadvantage become that much worse? Aren't we that much
> >> further behind?
> >> >
> >> >I agree that this person does not seem a good fit for our positions,
> >> >our work and our views. Of course, we would want someone who is! But
> >> >that's different than rejecting the program.  With so many comments to
> >> >which we are Not responding and so much work we are Not doing, it would
> >> >be good to have someone who could turn our notes into a draft -- to
> >> >spin straw into gold :-).
> >> >
> >> >Best, Kathy
> >> >
> >> >On 4/25/2016 3:23 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Dear All,
> >> >>
> >> >>I think after studying the write up, it is worth supporting.
> >> >>
> >> >>My 50cents, is to give in my support for the pilot program.
> >> >>
> >> >>Thank you.
> >> >>
> >> >>Sonigitu Ekpe
> >> >>
> >> >>Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179
> >> >> "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Edward Morris
> >> >><<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Hello everybody,
> >> >>
> >> >>The NCUC EC will be discussing today whether to participate in an
> >> >>ICANN pilot program designed to offer assistance with policy research
> >> >>and document drafting to selected constituencies and stakeholder
> >> >>groups. I echo the views expressed by Milton on the NCUC EC mailing
> >> >>list when he writes "I want to express my strongest opposition to this
> >> entire program".
> >> >>
> >> >>It is tempting. We are launching three major pdp's, some of us are
> >> >>dramatically overworked, we sure need help. But not from ICANN, not in
> >> >>this way, not now.
> >> >>
> >> >>If ICANN wants to support the NCUC in policy development (of course,
> >> >>the NCUC traditionally does not do policy to any great extent, a
> >> >>mistake in my view)  there are ways to assist us with resources. The
> >> >>key is control of these resources. This program IMHO does not empower
> >> >>the NCUC;  if successful it could make us somewhat dependent upon
> >> >>ICANN for assistance with policy. Friends, if we can't research and
> >> >>draft and create policy positions ourselves then we don't deserve to
> >>exist.
> >> >>
> >> >>Three years ago I was opposed to accepting ICANN's offer of
> >> >>administrative help. It was not that I thought hiring someone (who
> >> >>turned out to be MaryAm) to assist with the tasks volunteers like
> >> >>Robin were then spending  far too much time doing would doom us to
> >> "company union"
> >> >>status. My opposition was based upon the fear that once we went down
> >> >>this slippery slope there was no turning back. My fear is being
> >> >>realised with this program.
> >> >>
> >> >>In our proposed response we seem to be asking ICANN for some of this
> >> >>type of support:
> >> >>
> >> >>- assistance with front end issue research
> >> >>- research on the background of the specific issue being addressed
> >> >>- join community calls/chats where "position setting" is focus
> >> >>
> >> >>This program is bering developed by an ICANN contractor WBC Global.
> >> >>Dan O'Neill is the Principal of the firm and is the one working on
> >> >>this program with ICANN. Dan's biography states:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>As the principal of the firm, he offers public policy, political and
> >> >>strategic business advice to Fortune 500 and other companies, with a
> >> >>focus on international trade, market access and intellectual property
> >> >>rights.  He represent companies before Congress, the White House and
> >> >>federal agencies on a diverse set of public policy matters including
> >> >>investment, international trade disputes, international tax, custom
> >> >>issues as well as economic sanctions issues.
> >> >>
> >> >>Recent activities on behalf of clients include: advising on the
> >> >>Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement on negotiations impacting
> >> >>intellectual property rights, investment and market access; lobby in
> >> >>support of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for Russia;
> >> >>strategizing and lobbying for companies having market access and IPR
> >> >>issues in China; advising on WTO negotiations on expansion of the
> >> >>Information Technology Agreement and renewed effort to secure an
> >> >>agreement on Services; and provide advice on the use of US trade
> >> >>preference programs for investment issues in developing countries.
> >> >>
> >> >>He also plays a leading role in business community activity with UN
> >> >>Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>This is not someone I want anywhere near our Constituency. Mr. O'Neill
> >> >>spends his professional life advocating for positions and
> >> >>organisations that are traditionally opposed to that which the NCUC
> >> >>supports. He's not somebody with our interests at heart.
> >> >>
> >> >>If ICANN wants to support the NCUC in this area I have no problem with
> >> >>the NCUC accepting ICANN's financial support: provided we have
> >> >>complete independence in selecting the hire and defining the job.
> >> >>There are many in the nonprofit sector, many public interest
> >> >>organizations, we could contract with for policy help if we had the
> >> >>resources and freedom to do so. We can do better than joining a "pilot
> >> >>program" being organised by someone who has a "leading role in
> >> >>business community activity" within the IGF. In fact, instead of
> >> >>joining this program we should be questioning why WBC was hired.
> >> >>
> >> >>One other problem: If ICANN is going to pay people to do some of our
> >> >>policy work then why should anyone do other parts of our policy work
> >> >>for free? When I run political campaigns I keep paid canvassers
> >> >>completely separate from volunteer canvassers. I've found you lose the
> >> >>volunteers if you don't. Same thing here. If you look at the details
> >> >>of the proposal there is even a chance the help provided may be an
> >> >>active member of another part of the ICANN community. Amazing.
> >> >>
> >> >>I join Milton in hoping the EC rejects this. We do need help in this
> >> >>area but not under these terms. Our independence is very much at
> stake.
> >> >>Please, EC, keep ICANN and WBC Global away from direct involvement in
> >> >>the noncommercial policy develkopmnent process. Do not go further
> >> down
> >> >>this slope leading to dependence upon ICANN for all that we do.
> >> >>
> >> >>Best,
> >> >>
> >> >>Ed
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>_______________________________________________
> >> >>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >> >><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >> >><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
> http://li
> >> >>sts.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>_______________________________________________
> >> >>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >> >><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >> >><http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
> http://li
> >> >>sts.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >> >Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >> >http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160426/2854010e/attachment-0002.html>